Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

You come into my thread, that has the topic clearly lined out, then complain that I won't answer an unrelated question while you yourself show no intention of sticking to the topic. You have some nerve, there.

Oh, please ti317, answer my question! I won't be able to sleep until I hear what you have to say!

Whatever. Surely, there's a "conservative" on here that can explain to me why Boehner won't call for a vote.

Oh so we can only discuss what you say is in the title? Sorta like you discussing sane sex marriage in a Federal Shutdown thread?

A blind man on a galloping horse can see why.

First, he is not 100% certain of the vote. Second there is nothing to be gained by calling the vote. Sorta like Harry Reid refusing to bring the Bill to fund the NIH to the floor.

Now I've answered your question. Do you have it in you to give a grown up answer to mine?

All the early betting is on no. But I keep telling them you are more intellectually honest than that.

That shrugging gif response wasn't even directed to you. That was my shrugging gif response! Get your own damned shrugging gif response for your quotes you thieving bastard! What are you? A Tea Bag Republican?!?!?

And yet the President took it upon himself to change the text of a statute without benefit of any legislative action ( hint, changing the effective date of employer mandate). Second hint, read Articles 1 and 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

Nothing unconstitutional was committed....otherwise, don't you think the Republican party would have been circling the wagons? The POTUS was entirely within his power to make those changes whether you like it or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ti317

And yet the President and his minions rail against the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens a United case.

"My philosophy as a businessman has always been to take care of the people who make me successful. It has always been "we" in my business conversations with others. At a certain point in a successful business it behooves one to make sure those doing a good job of supporting you are not struggling to make ends meet."

It's really simple, there are crooked, treasonous republicans bribed by hookers and blow (or whatever floats their boat, little boys maybe?) that will vote against the majority of the GOP stance. Likewise the Repubs have these same plants on the Demo side at any given time if the price is right. A big circle jerk. It's politics.

What's politics? Simple. Getting other people to do what you want.

I though you knew politics. Obama thinks he can call Boehner as he as he multitasks another teleprompter campaign speech.

He's wrong, these guys aren't going to budge. What then? IDK maybe O will whip up some executive orders in his rage. This will get interesting.

Nothing unconstitutional was committed....otherwise, don't you think the Republican party would have been circling the wagons? The POTUS was entirely within his power to make those changes whether you like it or not.

As do Republicans against other cases....so, what's your point?

Read the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3 and then tell me is he has the power to rewrite law. The problem is that there are only two courses of action available, Impeachment or lawsuit. The House is unable to file a lawsuit and Impeachment has to be tried in the Senate and there are not enough votes to Convict and remove him from office and there would be tremendous backlash at another failed Impeachment.

So the House is hamstrung. The problem is that the public in general is not educated on our system of government nor familiar enough with the Constitution.

Read the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3 and then tell me is he has the power to rewrite law. The problem is that there are only two courses of action available, Impeachment or lawsuit. The House is unable to file a lawsuit and Impeachment has to be tried in the Senate and there are not enough votes to Convict and remove him from office and there would be tremendous backlash at another failed Impeachment.

So the House is hamstrung. The problem is that the public in general is not educated on our system of government nor familiar enough with the Constitution.

Mostly, the heated rhetoric of the past few weeks ignores what the Administration has actually decided and how it has delimited the scope and purpose of that decision. The Treasury Department's announcement provides for one year of "transition relief," to continue working through 2014 with "employers, insurers, and other reporting entities" to revise and engage in "real-world testing" of the reporting requirements, simplify forms, coordinate requisite public and private sector information technology arrangements, and engineer a "smoother transition to full implementation in 2015." The announcement describes the postponed requirements as "ACA mandatory" -- i.e., not discretionary or subject to indefinite waiver. On July 9, Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Mazur added, in a letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton, that the Department expects to publish proposed rules implementing the relevant provisions "this summer, after a dialogue with stakeholders." In effect, the Administration explains the delay as a sensible adjustment to phase-in enforcement, not a refusal to enforce

It would be a monumentally stupid idea, the unconstitutional part, the gun ban, would be stricken and the defunding would stand.

But you knew that, didn't you?

It was a joke, big cat. I own plenty of firearms. However, you could modify that to replace gun ban to mandatory background checks and registration and it would be about the same. Both are examples of an unstoppable object meeting an immovable force. One has to break.

Message to Obama. Change places with Biden for 15 minutes and all the votes will go thru in an instant, and the debt ceiling debate will go away also. Problem solved.

You're not dragging race into this are you?

__________________

"My philosophy as a businessman has always been to take care of the people who make me successful. It has always been "we" in my business conversations with others. At a certain point in a successful business it behooves one to make sure those doing a good job of supporting you are not struggling to make ends meet."

Message to Obama. Change places with Biden for 15 minutes and all the votes will go thru in an instant, and the debt ceiling debate will go away also. Problem solved.

Biden? Are you for real? He guy is a running joke. He ran for President twice and probably garnered a total of 100,000 votes. Selecting Biden a VP was a stroke of genius as the threat that he could become President is enough to make the Grand Dragon of the KKK donate organs to save Obama's life.